Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GOVERNMENT OF SINDH VS Respondent: ABDUL JABBARHonorable Justice HAMID ALI MIRZASuleman Habibullah
2004 P L C (C
2004 P L C (C.S.) 99
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ
GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Home Department and others
Versus
ABDUL JABBAR and others
Civil Petition No.556-K of 2001, decided on 30th. November, 2001.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 5-7-2001 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Circuit in C.P. No.D-191 of 1996).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----
----Arts. 185(3) & 199---Civil service---Appointments against advertised posts---Petitioners qualified written test and interview and were recommended by Selection Committee---Authority made appointments on the basis of list approved by Government as per direction of higher Authorities, thus, deprived petitioners having legitimate expectation for appointment---High Court accepted Constitutional petition with direction to respondents to issue appointment letter to petitioners---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed against judgment of the High Court.
Senior Superintendent of Police and others v. Makhdoom Ayaz Ahmed Siddiqui C.P. No.771-K of 2001 ref.
Suleman Habibullah, Addl. A.-G. and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Respondent No. 1 in person.
Date of hearing: 30th November, 2001.
JUDGMENT
HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5-7-2001 in Constitution Petition No.D-191 of 1996 (Abdul Jabbar and 5 others v. Government of Sindh and 4 others) whereby the said appeal was allowed by learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Circuit with direction to the petitioners to issue appointment letters of the respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents in pursuance of advertisement in Daily Jang dated 1-10-1994 applied for the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police and after having qualified the written test and having been recommended by the Selection Committee were placed on merit for Nawabshah District. However, because of political pressure some other persons were appointed against the posts to which the respondents were recommended by the Selection Committee and thereby respondents were not issued appointment letters hence they filed Constitution petitions before the High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Circuit which petitions were allowed as per impugned judgment.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No. 1 in person and perused the record.
4. The learned Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment has observed that "S.P. Nawabshah has exposed the attitude of concerned authority and has stated that appointments were made on the basis of list approved by the Government of Sindh and the action was taken as per direction of the higher authorities which mode of appointment was not in accordance with the rules and procedure and thereby persons appearing in test and qualifying the interview who had legitimate expectation for appointment were deprived. " It has also been observed that learned Additional Advocate-General who had appeared was unable to defend the stand taken by the S.P. m his comments and showed his helplessness. We have already dismissed C.P. No.771-K of 2001 (Senior Superintendent of Police and others v. Makhdoom Ayaz Ahmed Siddiqui) on 28-11-2001 which was identical case to that of the petitioner. In C.P.L.A. No.771-K of 2001, in para-5 of the judgment, this Court has observed that Amir Murtaza, Muhammad Hussain, Abdul Majeed, Faisal Shafi, Atta Muhammad, Ghulam Qadir, Abdul Ghani and Rafiq Ahmed had challenged their termination orders and they were re-instated against which Government of Sindh had preferred Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos.695-K of 1999, 256-K to 259-K, 261-K, 262-K and 267-K of 1999 before this Court but leave to appeal was declined and petitions were dismissed by this Court on 25-4-2000 and 8-7-1999. Review Petitions Nos.37-K to 43-K of 1999 against the order dated 8-7-1999 were also preferred but the same were also dismissed on 22-12-1999 by this Court. The said petitions were also for the appointment of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police.
5. In the circumstances, we find no ground for our interference in this petition, consequently leave to appeal is declined and the petition is dismissed.
S.A.K./G-193/S Leave refused.